Happy New Year!
MIS Green wanted to introduce you to the humorous side of environmental issues. By no means are we diminishing the seriousness of this matter, but there are ways to inform people through levity and 'feeling good."
Think about your favorite professor that made you laugh as she/he taught and how those lessons felt more like messages that melted into your thoughts- you may even remember a few of them to this day.
Well, MIS Green hopes that you find some smiles at the website URL below, even for a moment with all of the current events around the world.
We look forward to hearing your perspective on things in 2009!
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/04-20/environmental-cartoons-jokes-1-eco.htm#one
The MIS Green Reps
They are very serious about their job!
Friday, January 16, 2009
Saturday, December 20, 2008
What are people thinking?
At MIS Green, we like to think about the environment AND people. This thought process brought us back to asking the basic question(s): What do people think or what is their knee-jerk reaction when they hear "green" "sustainable" "environmentally-friendly" words?
Here were some things that came up from our personal and professional experiences and sentiments:
- smug
- anti-people
- goody goodie
- sacrifice and compromise
- feel good all over
- fire and brimstone sermons
- soapbox
- detached and unrelatable
- all-natural and undesirable
- more expensive
- healthier
- guilt
- trendy
- "you fill in the blank"
Some of these are positive and many are not so appealing for the greener efforts. This is why MIS Green goes about our effort in a much different manner/philosophy and we are "the Not So Green Firm"
Here were some things that came up from our personal and professional experiences and sentiments:
- smug
- anti-people
- goody goodie
- sacrifice and compromise
- feel good all over
- fire and brimstone sermons
- soapbox
- detached and unrelatable
- all-natural and undesirable
- more expensive
- healthier
- guilt
- trendy
- "you fill in the blank"
Some of these are positive and many are not so appealing for the greener efforts. This is why MIS Green goes about our effort in a much different manner/philosophy and we are "the Not So Green Firm"
Friday, October 31, 2008
Anything nature does we can do better…?
Biomimicry. Could it be the beginning of the end of Invention or a fine Starting Point?
Biomimicry defined by Janine M. Benyus in her book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature as a new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems…
We think Biomimicry is a great methodology to generate concepts for sustainable products and services; here are some thoughts that tug at our crania:
Environment and biological entities have mutations and diversity as means to adapt and persevere in changing and challenging conditions; Technology has People on which it relies.
Biomimicry defined by Janine M. Benyus in her book Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature as a new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems…
We think Biomimicry is a great methodology to generate concepts for sustainable products and services; here are some thoughts that tug at our crania:
- Today, the mechanisms of natural systems are not at their top performance. They are tainted and compromised by pollutants (e.g. oil spils, smog, global warming, run-off, etc.), mutations, and other human-induced spoils. Are these the best models we want to synthetically emulate?
- Does copying nature indicate the demise of Invention? Then we are left to Innovate the environment at best.
- It [the environment] works! Why reinvent the wheel if it was done right the first time(s)? Biomimicry: reverse-engineering nature ?
- The laws, mechanisms, and systems of all synthetic components have inspiration from nature.
Environment and biological entities have mutations and diversity as means to adapt and persevere in changing and challenging conditions; Technology has People on which it relies.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
'Safe Haven' or Lost Essence for having Children?
In a country like the US, even our children do not have it so good, today. Are we becoming more like an undeveloped country where it may not be unusual for children to have low survival rates or left on their own to sustain when events like food shortages, natural disasters, etc. remove them from their natural parents?
Interestingly, our kids may be left in 'safe havens' like that provided for in Nebraska due to shortage of resources in their homes. Or perhaps, they are just too difficult to raise.
So I read about the Nebraska 'safe haven' law matter in a few different sources, two of which were "The Week" magazine [10/17/1008 Volume 8, Issue 383) and USA TODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-25-Left-kids_N.htm).
Do we blame today's economy, the environmental pollutants that have compromised our off-spring mentally and behaviorally, or are WE just to blame? Do we have more children than we can parent [singly or as 2 parents] and love, and more than we can financially support?
Historically, numerous children meant more helpers that were critical to the survival of a family. Today, numerous children, arguably defined in this post as > 2, typically means more consumers and more work for parents ! Where did we go wrong? Is it just our inherent nature for excess beyond our means?
Did we lose the essence that children should be helping and working towards a family's successful survival and earn their right to consume resources? It sounds crude and mean.
When one reads news about infants to 18-year-olds being dropped off at hospitals and abandoned without prosecution of the parents - not saying whether this practice is "Right" or "Wrong," one can't help but wonder - Where have we gone wrong and how do we fix it?
In my idealistic mind, it would be nice to believe that these children in Nebraska are not really left behind, but this is a new trend in non-physical methods of disciplining unruly children. In the story I've thought up, the parent(s) come back and collect them and take them home, and these children never misbehave again. The End. [What do I know, I don't have kids!?]
Interestingly, our kids may be left in 'safe havens' like that provided for in Nebraska due to shortage of resources in their homes. Or perhaps, they are just too difficult to raise.
So I read about the Nebraska 'safe haven' law matter in a few different sources, two of which were "The Week" magazine [10/17/1008 Volume 8, Issue 383) and USA TODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-25-Left-kids_N.htm).
Do we blame today's economy, the environmental pollutants that have compromised our off-spring mentally and behaviorally, or are WE just to blame? Do we have more children than we can parent [singly or as 2 parents] and love, and more than we can financially support?
Historically, numerous children meant more helpers that were critical to the survival of a family. Today, numerous children, arguably defined in this post as > 2, typically means more consumers and more work for parents ! Where did we go wrong? Is it just our inherent nature for excess beyond our means?
Did we lose the essence that children should be helping and working towards a family's successful survival and earn their right to consume resources? It sounds crude and mean.
When one reads news about infants to 18-year-olds being dropped off at hospitals and abandoned without prosecution of the parents - not saying whether this practice is "Right" or "Wrong," one can't help but wonder - Where have we gone wrong and how do we fix it?
In my idealistic mind, it would be nice to believe that these children in Nebraska are not really left behind, but this is a new trend in non-physical methods of disciplining unruly children. In the story I've thought up, the parent(s) come back and collect them and take them home, and these children never misbehave again. The End. [What do I know, I don't have kids!?]
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Built to last? Maybe not so cool
Since losing my SUV of 6 years [pre-owned certificed] and moving on to a leased super-compact car on the opposite end of the spectrum, my thoughts about these types of products have changed. Life is still good!
The slogan that I haven’t heard from one of the major car companies in some time is “…built to last” Is it possible that there is an arising sentiment from customers that they don’t want vehicles to last…on their dime?
Truth is, why should consumer vehicles last longer than 3 – 6 years when “better” and more efficient models are released to market every year? Perhaps my commitment was misguided when I desired my SUV to last forever – I still don’t doubt it could’ve!
There is no more “…built to last,” at least not in any ads I caught on TV. Maybe someone else has caught it!
The following concept was seeded in my mind and remained dormant until I contemplated on my own vehicle issues and the ensuing options to acquire a new one. "Cradle to Cradle"
A book by William McDonough called Cradle to Cradle [became a really popular buzz term], presented a different concept for creating new/next generation products (i.e. cars):
“…make an attractive product that is affordable, meets regulations, performs well enough, and lasts long enough to meet market expectations…”
on page 37 in Cradle to Cradle
Do we really want our products to last “for better or for worse” or is it in our best interest [and the environment’s] to have them whine down at a fixed time so we can continually acquire better - more efficient – options?
The slogan that I haven’t heard from one of the major car companies in some time is “…built to last” Is it possible that there is an arising sentiment from customers that they don’t want vehicles to last…on their dime?
Truth is, why should consumer vehicles last longer than 3 – 6 years when “better” and more efficient models are released to market every year? Perhaps my commitment was misguided when I desired my SUV to last forever – I still don’t doubt it could’ve!
There is no more “…built to last,” at least not in any ads I caught on TV. Maybe someone else has caught it!
The following concept was seeded in my mind and remained dormant until I contemplated on my own vehicle issues and the ensuing options to acquire a new one. "Cradle to Cradle"
A book by William McDonough called Cradle to Cradle [became a really popular buzz term], presented a different concept for creating new/next generation products (i.e. cars):
“…make an attractive product that is affordable, meets regulations, performs well enough, and lasts long enough to meet market expectations…”
on page 37 in Cradle to Cradle
Do we really want our products to last “for better or for worse” or is it in our best interest [and the environment’s] to have them whine down at a fixed time so we can continually acquire better - more efficient – options?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Are we due for the Ancient Mayan's fate? Over-proliferation v. Natural Resources
I was watching an episode of "Cities of the Underworld" on the History Channel and they discussed the ancient Mayan civilizations petitioning to their gods for much needed water and resources. The natural environment was not sustaining the quickly growing populations of the thriving societies. A valid note was made on the web that the Mayan culture is still around, hence I have chosen to distinguish today's Mayan culture from the 8th - 10th century Mayans by using the term "ancient."
Note: They did mention that some ancient Mayan societies lasted longer than others, despite battles between them, because those long-lasting people utilized an underground water capture and storage system. I figure they utilized that water wisely for drinking and growing food.
Are we repeating history? in the sense that we are at the limit or over the maximum headcount beyond the Earth's capacity to sustain us and nature. Have our numerous mouths dangerously over-produced, harvested, consumed, and discarded without returning back to nature? Perhaps a nationwide practice of capturing water is not a bad idea, not just for people who live in drier or desert climates as in New Mexico.
This is the not the forum you'll hear of enforced procreation limits, but don't we hunt deer and bears when their populations grow and begin to infringe on our way of living? OK, this is not advocating hunting either, but all this talk about changing our lifestyles by recycling, using less energy, using less gasoline, encroaching on less of the natural environment has me thinking that perhaps the good habit is to change the drivers that cause these things to happen in excess.
More people on the Earth definitely means more activity - activities such as those environmentalists tell us we have to abstain from or do less of. MIS Green is more interested in thinking up and evaluating super cool and appealing product options and solutions.
For deer and bears, I think the birth control darts are the best way to go, but I haven't researched it and many people find the economics of this approach to be expensive. One may question how effective it's been on our society though it is currently just voluntary! Any new ideas ???
Money never seems to fail to be a motivator!
Interesting links:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=drought-may-have-brought
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2848977.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080229-servir-maya_2.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/03/14/demise.maya.ap/
Note: They did mention that some ancient Mayan societies lasted longer than others, despite battles between them, because those long-lasting people utilized an underground water capture and storage system. I figure they utilized that water wisely for drinking and growing food.
Are we repeating history? in the sense that we are at the limit or over the maximum headcount beyond the Earth's capacity to sustain us and nature. Have our numerous mouths dangerously over-produced, harvested, consumed, and discarded without returning back to nature? Perhaps a nationwide practice of capturing water is not a bad idea, not just for people who live in drier or desert climates as in New Mexico.
This is the not the forum you'll hear of enforced procreation limits, but don't we hunt deer and bears when their populations grow and begin to infringe on our way of living? OK, this is not advocating hunting either, but all this talk about changing our lifestyles by recycling, using less energy, using less gasoline, encroaching on less of the natural environment has me thinking that perhaps the good habit is to change the drivers that cause these things to happen in excess.
More people on the Earth definitely means more activity - activities such as those environmentalists tell us we have to abstain from or do less of. MIS Green is more interested in thinking up and evaluating super cool and appealing product options and solutions.
For deer and bears, I think the birth control darts are the best way to go, but I haven't researched it and many people find the economics of this approach to be expensive. One may question how effective it's been on our society though it is currently just voluntary! Any new ideas ???
Money never seems to fail to be a motivator!
Interesting links:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=drought-may-have-brought
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2848977.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080229-servir-maya_2.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/03/14/demise.maya.ap/
Thursday, May 22, 2008
MIS Green's initial look @ E-Fuel Ethanol Unit [web-based]
As promised, I said in the previous post that one of those products/ideas and services was going to be evaluated.
For this, I really wanted to dive into the E-Fuel 100 unit- a pump station and ethanol distiller in one. Hopefully, this gets you thinking and maybe you'll come up with some alternative or similar perspectives!
It's made by E-Fuel Corporation, website: www.efuel100.com
What it is: disruptive technology
It may be too early or just the enabler for ethanol vehicles in industries that are caught in the "chicken or the egg" energy conundrum. It's exciting to see how this type of technology does and what changes it prompts!
The color of the symbols for Consumer, Environment, and Business/Economy indicate a positive or negative effect for that entity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)